Rightwing politicos and leftwing politicos don’t usually agree on specifics, but they do often agree on principle: namely, that government’s proper sphere of authority does extend beyond protection against the initiation of force.
Like most politicians, today’s politicians, both right and left, believe that human beings are not capable of flourishing without the aid of bureaucrats; these bureaucrats therefore believe they must help us live our lives for us. And nowhere is this unquestioned conviction made clearer than in the issue of drugs.
Drugs, like prostitution, provide us with an excellent example of how the rightwing and the left are not fundamentally opposed but merely disagree on superficialities, insofar as both sides agree that not all drugs should be legal.
This notion is so entrenched in the mind’s of Americans that to question its legitimacy at all is considered lunatic-fringe thinking.
True, there are representatives on both sides of the political spectrum who support legalizing marijuana and perhaps a few other drugs. But start talking about legalizing all drugs on principle, or mention doing away with all drinking-age laws on principle, and all liquor laws on principle, or speak of legalizing gambling and prostitution in all states and cities — and then you really begin to sort out the men from the boys.
The principle I’m speaking of is of course the principle that it is not within the proper sphere of government to be involved in these aspects of human lives.
If we each possess the right to our own life and only our own life — and we do — then drug usage is obviously the right of each individual. The fact that it has become unquestionable to the majority that we do not possess the right to use drugs is we choose is a sad testament to the power of entrenchment.
It is a sad testament to how people get so used to thinking about something in one way that changing minds becomes absolutely out of the question. Yet if you truly believe in freedom, which the overwhelming majority of people don’t, you not only should but must believe in the legalization of all drugs. If you do not, then you do not believe in freedom, and you must choose: freedom or statism.
This point can be made on principle alone, and it is a foolproof argument, the first and strongest line of defense. But it will not satisfy those who believe the proper scope of government does extend into telling us how we may and may not live.
This point was very recently hammered home to a UC Hastings law professor named Clark Freshman, who, in his own words, had “been on the fence for years about the legalization of drugs … and now I’m a victim of this crazy war on drugs.”
The full article, which appeared in this week’s San Francisco Weekly, is entitled “Castro Pot Bust Goes Awry and a Law Professor Threatens to Sue.”
So we have another convert. The only question I have is for Mr. Freshman is this: what the hell took you so long?
(Hat tip Timothy Sandefur.)
I thought his statement was vague. Is he really a freedom convert or just against illegal detainment and search?
Only recently did I discover you were back writing on your blog on a regular basis. I’ve missed your insights and will be spending any leisure time getting caught up on your posts. Cheers to my fellow lover of freedom and favorite mixologist (she says as she raises her martini glass).
Hi Catch Her in the Wry! Cheers to you as well. Long time no see — too long, far too long. If memory serves, the last time we communicated was right around the time JD Salinger died, which was just over a year ago. A black bitter day.
I’m still slinging the sauce, peanut. I hope all is well with you. Thank you for dropping by.
Ray, what most fascinates me about this post is the lack of response to your provocative assertions.
Yeah, I know, I know. I’ve been a little surprised by that too, Dale. At the same time, my readership has never been higher (so to speak), and this post in particular has gotten a lot of hits, as it were, so I’m not sure how to account for the stony silence.
OK, since you’re feeling needy…
I once worked with a guy who wrote porn titles when he was bored. My favorite was “Catch Her in the Rear.”
In response to your article, should people be free to fuck in public? I’m not talking about just hot lesbians. I’m talking about fat, sweaty people, too.
I was discussing drug legalization with someone a few days ago, and they brought up this hypothetical about being free to do what you want. What exactly is the argument against public boning?
(For the record, I am a statist because I ultimately settled on the idea that hot lesbians should have WAY more freedom than fat, hairy people.)
Hello Nick the Dick (your porn title). The answer to your question is, in the style of society we live in, indecent exposure laws, which are legitimate. Just as noise ordinances are, and other such laws.
In a truly privatized society, however, the property owner determines. For example: you own a bar, so you as the owner decide if people can run around naked in your bar, or not.
Believe it or not, your question comes up a lot in so-called libertarian circles. Here, for instance.
So are you, a freedom loving man, in favor of public boning? I can see where noise ordinances could be said to protect another person’s ears or at least their privacy, but can the same be said for public nudity? Who is really hurt by it?
Just wondering.
Off to check out your link now. Maybe it’s explained there.
“One case I saw in (I believe it was Colorado) involved a naked pedophile hanging out around a school bus stop, whacking off.”
OK. Now I see why you’re in favor of it…
Ha-ha!
Asked and answered.
For God’s sake, man! At least buy yourself a trench coat.
Come on Nick, man, it’s a no-brainer. Drug use in itself should not be illegal, in the same way that fucking or jerking off – in themselves – should not be illegal. It’s personal choice. If, however, you want to inflict your drugs – or your boner – on someone else against their will, then that is rightly illegal and (more importantly) immoral.
Sure, but I didn’t say I wanted to inflict my boner on someone who doesn’t want it. (Not that such a person exists, mind you.)
What if two consenting adults want to bang each other in a park? Who is harmed by it? Is being offended by something a real “harm?” If so, let’s make being a fat ass illegal.
Just wondering.
Nick, offensive behavior is squashed through societal pressure. Your friends, family, neighbors, etc. call you out when you misbehave.
In a free society there still exists manners and shame. It is a non-sequitor to assume if there is no law against some specific behavior then everyone will act shamelessly.
To examine your example for a moment, currently there is no law against being fat. What are we to do to minimize the percentages of fat asses? Well for women I think the proper approach is to shame them to the point that they develop eating disorders.
So slapping the stones to someone in public should be legal?
Just want to confirm before I go out and take my afternoon stroll through the neighborhood.